The people who called us conspiracy theorists and Putin lovers for saying all along that it wasn't Russia will never apologize or acknowledge their mistake, and they'll swallow the next obvious lie without a moment's hesitation.
Kind of weird question maybe, I'm up unreasonably late, but is there a term for the thought process that leads someone to a probably true conclusion (such as the US, Norway, and Ukraine collaborated on the nordstream demolition) due to inference/pattern recognition/intuition, without undeniable evidence?
Really though it's frustrating that I can't show the receipts on something so blatantly obvious, I feel like if I encountered someone who really wanted to believe Putler did it, I'd have to resort to fuckin, slapping it into them lol
Most turbo Libs aren't well meaning people who got duped by some super convincing propaganda. They're smug, willfully ignorant assholes who subconsciously know half of what they say is total bullshit but they really WANT it to be true. You're not ever going to convince them cuz they're not obliged to abide by the truth.
True it's a form of conjecture but I like the term @Philosoraptor gave, since "abduction" differentiates between conjectures in terms of simplicity and likeliness, so for example "Russia blew up nordstream" and "NATO blew up nordstream" are both conjecture but the latter is a simpler and likelier explanation.
They swallow the consent manufacturing whole and call conspiracy theorist anyone who doesn't, then it's reveled that it was all lies just like the "conspiracy theorists" said and they "acknowledge" that they've been bamboozled (without acknowledging that the peoples who told them they were were right) and swear that they won't fall for it again, then they fall for it again.
I think its more that they believe they had the best information they could. They'll see it as a mistake or a blip in their otherwise good research/sources.
The people who called us conspiracy theorists and Putin lovers for saying all along that it wasn't Russia will never apologize or acknowledge their mistake, and they'll swallow the next obvious lie without a moment's hesitation.
every time
Kind of weird question maybe, I'm up unreasonably late, but is there a term for the thought process that leads someone to a probably true conclusion (such as the US, Norway, and Ukraine collaborated on the nordstream demolition) due to inference/pattern recognition/intuition, without undeniable evidence?
facts and logic
Really though it's frustrating that I can't show the receipts on something so blatantly obvious, I feel like if I encountered someone who really wanted to believe Putler did it, I'd have to resort to fuckin, slapping it into them lol
Most turbo Libs aren't well meaning people who got duped by some super convincing propaganda. They're smug, willfully ignorant assholes who subconsciously know half of what they say is total bullshit but they really WANT it to be true. You're not ever going to convince them cuz they're not obliged to abide by the truth.
In that case I want to punk them in the eyes of any observers, so the same questions apply imo
No
no I didn't need to see that right before bed :|
Conjecture.
True it's a form of conjecture but I like the term @Philosoraptor gave, since "abduction" differentiates between conjectures in terms of simplicity and likeliness, so for example "Russia blew up nordstream" and "NATO blew up nordstream" are both conjecture but the latter is a simpler and likelier explanation.
Too most people you sound crazy just explaining how the system works.
You might call it a kind of abduction (as opposed to induction or deduction), which is inference to the best explanation.
That's a good one, I'm not sure I've heard of that one before but it's probably the best fit!
They're just going to pretend that they never claimed it was Russia in the first place.
They swallow the consent manufacturing whole and call conspiracy theorist anyone who doesn't, then it's reveled that it was all lies just like the "conspiracy theorists" said and they "acknowledge" that they've been bamboozled (without acknowledging that the peoples who told them they were were right) and swear that they won't fall for it again, then they fall for it again.
I think its more that they believe they had the best information they could. They'll see it as a mistake or a blip in their otherwise good research/sources.